Monday, August 3, 2015

Another denizen of the
zoo of Near Earth Asteroids is a little rock called 2010 TK7.The first clue to its unusual nature comes
from its orbital period: 1.00039 Earth years.The second clue is the orbit it pursues to permit it to avoid collision
with Earth.This 300-meter NEA follows
the L4 Lagrange point on Earth’s orbit, 60 degrees ahead of Earth. Its behavior is similar to that of the Trojan asteroids on Jupiter's orbit, 60 degrees ahead of and 60 degrees behind Jupiter: we can call it an "Earth Trojan". It circulates slowly around the exact L4
point because its orbit is quite eccentric (eccentricity 0.1908) and inclined
(20.882 degrees).As it ranges from
perihelion, 0.8094 AU from the Sun (closer to Venus’ orbit than to Earth’s), out
to aphelion at 1.1911 AU, its orbital velocity constantly changes

There have been
numerous suggestions that this asteroid would be a very easy target for
spacecraft missions from Earth.The
usual rationale is that, unlike most NEAs, it is always close to Earth and therefore
easy to reach.But this argument is
simplistic and requires scrutiny.Suppose the spacecraft departs from the Earth-Moon system with a
relative velocity of 2 km per second.The mean distance between Earth and the L4 point is 150,000,000
kilometers; to get there would then require 75 million seconds (about two and a
half years), after which the spacecraft would fly by the asteroid at a relative
speed of 2 kilometers per second, traversing the diameter of the asteroid in
1/7 of a second. To reduce the flyby
speed to the point at which the spacecraft could rendezvous with, orbit around,
or land on the asteroid requires a velocity change (“delta V” to rocketeers)
even larger than that required to take off from the Moon and get into orbit.

The size of 2010 TK is
poorly known.Its apparent brightness
and distance, measured at the time of discovery, permit us to calculate an
absolute magnitude of 25.3, which is about 30
meters in diameter if the asteroid has “average” composition and
reflectivity; probably 20 to 50 meters within the uncertainties of our data.

In case you haven’t
seen the concept of “absolute magnitude” explained, it is the apparent
magnitude a body would have if observed at a distance of 1 AU form Earth and 1
AU from the Sun.The scale for measuring
magnitude is an adaptation of the ancient naked-eye system: a bright star is
“of the first magnitude”, a noticeably fainter star is 2nd
magnitude, and so on down to the practical limit of naked-eye observation, 6th
magnitude.Every interval of 5
magnitudes corresponds to a factor of 100 ratio in the intensity of visible
light.Thus Vega is about magnitude 1,
the faintest star your naked eye can see, about magnitude 6, provides 100 times
less light, and a body of magnitude 26 is 25 magnitudes fainter than Vega, or
five factors of 100 (10 billion times)
fainter.

Is there anything about
this rock that would attract the attention of explorers or miners?Because of its orbit, it can never approach
Earth closely enough to make it a practical target for spectroscopy or for radar
observations.If we needed to know what
it is made of, its chemistry, mineralogy, and physical structure, we would have
to go there.In other words, to find out
whether it would make sense to send a spacecraft there we would have to send a
spacecraft.This is not a compelling
argument for planning a mission.

High on the list of
things that Everybody Knows is the claim that the Gulf Stream is slowing down,
delivering ever less heat to the Northeastern US and Western Europe and
inevitably triggering a new Ice Age.The
“evidence” comes from proxy data and computer climate predictions; the reality of
the problem was attested by the 2004 eco-porn movie “The Day after Tomorrow”,
in which New York is eaten by a glacier.

There are just a few
little problems with this story.First,
there is the use of the word “evidence” to describe the predictions of models
and proxy estimates.Let’s be clear
about this: the way science progresses is to 1) collect data, 2) propose one or
more ideas, called hypotheses, that
might explain the data, 3) use quantitative models of these hypotheses to
generate predictions of future observations, and 4) carry out a new round of
experiments designed to test (and discriminate between) the competing
hypotheses.Steps 1 and 4 deal with
evidence (data); step 3 is not evidence; it is informed conjecture, as-yet
untested speculation, whose sole purpose is to motivate a search for critical new
data, NOT to predict the future.

Second, the role of
disaster movies is not to teach science; it is to sell tickets.Anyone who derives his understanding of
climatology from disaster movies is a fool.This judgement includes those whose knowledge of asteroids comes from
Bruce Willis.

Third, (a most
inconvenient truth): we actually have direct observational data on the flow of
the Gulf Stream covering some 23 years of recent history.Shock, horror: we don’t need to rely on
hypothetical speculation!A research
team headed by an eminent expert on oceanic circulation, Prof. H. Thomas Rossby
of the Graduate School of Oceanography of the University of Rhode Island and his team, have
been measuring the speed of the Gulf Stream since 1992.Their study was based on observations made on the Bermuda
Container Lines’ ship Oleander, which
makes weekly crossings from Elizabeth NJ to Bermuda.The Oleander
carries a Doppler current meter that directly measures currents to a depth of
about 600 m. And what are the results of
their research?They find no evidence whatsoever that the speed of
the Gulf Stream has decreased over the time of their study.Why do we get so much bad science in the press? Because untested conjectures are often much more interesting than the truth. Which sells more papers (or movies), the "news" that we are on the verge of a new Ice Age, or the demonstrated fact that everything is going on normally? By ignoring the distinction between untested hypotheses and replicated fact, they mislead the public, misrepresent the science, and sell their undigested pap as news.

Followers of the excellent BBC Sherlock series (yes, you—it’s OK to
admit it) have surely noticed the remarkable antipathy Sherlock holds against
the “Napoleon of blackmail”, the reptilian Charles Augustus Magnussen.But they also have perhaps been intrigued by
the “memory palace” process of memorization that Sherlock and Magnussen have in
common.

The revival of this ancient memory
technology traces back to Giordano Bruno’s “Art of Memory”, in which ideas,
people, and images are inserted into the context of a house or palace with many
rooms.This process was described and
elaborated in Frances A. Yates’ wonderful book, “Giordano Bruno and the
Hermetic Tradition”.

But the technique is of far more
ancient origin.Cicero and Aristotle
wrote of this technique, as did the famous Jesuit Matteo Ricci.They in turn provided the inspiration to
Bruno, whose ideas were again brought to current awareness by Yates’ scholarly
writings.And, as so often happens,
these ideas were again “invented” by the writers of Sherlock, who surely were
familiar with Bruno’s contribution, but who, in proof if their freedom from
stuffy academic conventions, passed them on to us free of scholarly
attribution.

This oversight is perhaps made more
understandable when we realize that the inscrutable Mycroft Holmes, in his assumed
persona of Mark Gatiss, is the producer and one of the writers of Sherlock.Surely he has some game afoot, if only we
knew what it was…

The asteroid 887 Alinda has long been known to follow an orbit that is nearly resonant with the orbital periods of both Jupiter and Earth: its orbital period of 3.915 years is close to the 1:4 Earth resonance and close to the 3:1 resonance with Jupiter. In recent years the rate of discovery of previously unknown asteroids has been enormous, with thousands of new asteroid discoveries each year, so it is not surprising that a number of other Alindas have been found. Membership in this family requires an orbital period very close to 4 Earth years, which in turn requires that the mean distance from the Sun (the orbital semi-major axis) must be close to 2.54 AU. That places these bodies in the inner asteroid belt—except for the excursions brought about by the eccentricities of their orbits.
Orbits close to a Jupiter resonance are not only subjected to the gravitational perturbations exerted by Jupiter on all asteroids, but experience repeated perturbations with the same approximate geometry. This allows, like the resonant pumping of a child on a swing, a constant buildup of self-reinforcing disturbances, which cause a constant growth in the eccentricity of the asteroid’s orbit, making an ever more elongated ellipse. Eventually, this growth in eccentricity imperils the asteroid by extending its orbit inward to perihelion distances ever closer to the Sun, crossing the orbits of one or more of the terrestrial planets, while also stretching the orbit outward so that its aphelion distance can approach Jupiter. Close encounters with any planet can seriously disturb an asteroid’s orbit; the closest encounters, resulting in collisions, are fatal to the asteroid and may be seriously disruptive to the target planet.
The 23 Alindas now known include eleven in low-eccentricity orbits (e ranging from about 0.30 to 0.34). These bodies roam the reaches of the Solar System from about 1.7 to 3.4 AU from the Sun, spending most of their time in the asteroid belt and never approaching any planet closely. They are the "young" Alindas, recently nudged into resonant orbits. In such orbits their resonant relationship to Jupiter causes their orbits over time to gradually become more eccentric. They are not in immediate danger except for the small probability of colliding with other asteroids, but they are in for serious trouble in the long run.
Three of the known Alindas (6318 Cronkite, 8709 Kadlu, and 6322 1991 CQ) have orbital eccentricities between 0.465 and 0.475, sufficient to have them cross the orbit of Mars. These three Alinda Mars-crossers do not cross the orbit of any other planet; Mars has a small mass and cross-section area, and cannot remove these bodies as rapidly as Jupiter can replenish them and move them on to even more eccentric orbits.
Then there is the namesake of the family, 887 Alinda itself, with an eccentricity of 0.564. Its perihelion distance (q) of 1.084 AU qualifies it as a near-Earth asteroid (NEAs by definition have q < 1.300 AU). It grazes but does not cross Earth’s orbit, making it an Amor asteroid as well as an Alinda family member.
Even more pumped-up Alinda clan members include eight (with eccentricities between 0.57 and 0.75) that cross Earth’s orbit: at perihelion they are closer to the Sun than Earth is at aphelion, 1.017 AU. They are therefore Apollo-family NEAs as well as Alindas. Since all Alindas are Earth-resonant, they may fly by Earth repeatedly at close range at 4-year intervals for decades at a time, affording radar observation and spacecraft launch opportunities—and collision opportunities—over that time period. One such asteroid is 4179 Toutatis, which was the target of a close flyby by the Chinese Chang-e 2 spacecraft in 2013. Two members of this group, 7092 Cadmus and 8201 1994 AH2, could be termed Venus-grazers, having perihelia inside 0.76 AU. The most eccentric of the Alindas is 3360 Syrinx, a Venus-crosser with e = 0.743. Its orbit makes six crossings of planetary orbits every four years (twice each for Mars, Earth, and Venus), a highly unstable situation that suggests a short life expectancy. Interestingly, all three of these most-eccentric Alindas have aphelia close to 4.3 AU. None of the Alindas approach Jupiter closely, a wise precaution. A close encounter with Jupiter could swallow the asteroid whole, kick it out of the Solar System permanently, or wreak other orbital havoc.
The Alindas serve as a reminder of the role Jupiter plays in sending hazardous bodies toward us; a fringe benefit is the opportunity to have many repeated launch opportunities to a given asteroid. The Alindas are loose cannons, subject to disturbance by Jupiter, Mars, Earth, and Venus. These asteroids are both carrot and stick, guaranteeing that we will hear a lot more about them in the future--such as when Toutatis comes by again in 2016!

Thursday, July 30, 2015

Research is hard work;
copying the work of others is a lazy man’s vice.In the world of family history, as in many
other areas of research, there is a vast gulf between the uncritical copying of
undocumented allegations and the critical evaluation of primary sources.

I recently stumbled
across a classic example of the victory of credulity over real research.While reviewing the family history of Wilbur
and Orville Wright I was amused (though not especially surprised) to find
multiple undocumented reports of the marriage and descendancy of Orville
Wright, including proud claims of living persons to be his direct descendant.Having already researched the Wrights, with
whom I share as common ancestors the 17th century Dutch immigrants
Gerrit Wolfertse van Couwenhoven and Aeltje Cornelise Cool, I knew that Orville
Wright never married.Then why do so
many family trees posted on Ancestry.com report a wife, children, and even
several generations of descendants for Orville?This question can only be answered by careful research.

Warning: on Ancestry,
many family trees cite no primary sources at all; many others list sources, but
the sources they cite actually contradict the information they claim to have
found in them.Citing a reference is no
substitute for reading, understanding, and using it!And remember that the family trees on
Ancestry.com are contributed by any interested party, whether they know the
rudiments of research or not, and are neither produced nor vetted by Ancestry.

A good place to start
is the 1930 United States Census.In it
we find two people named Orville Wright of about the right age and location.Orville #1, a single male, was born in Ohio
in 1871 and lived in Van Buren, Montgomery County, Ohio.His father was born in Indiana and his mother
in Virginia.Also in his home were his
housekeeper Carrie Grumbach and her husband Charles.At the same date, Orville #2, who was born in
Illinois in 1881, was living in Canton, Fulton County, Illinois.According to the 1930 Census, his father and
mother were both born in Illinois.He was
married, and gives his occupation as “farmer”.His wife, Hattie, was in the same household.

Which Orville is the
“Wright stuff”?It should be pretty
obvious that the Ohio Orville is the better candidate, but let’s go back a
decade to the 1920 U. S. Census and check up on them.In 1920, we find “Orvill Wright”, born in Ohio
in 1871, living in Van Buren, Montgomery County, Ohio, with his sister “Catheryn”
and the Grumbachs.His father’s and
mother’s birthplaces agree with the 1930 data.Once again he is listed as a single male.He reports his profession as “aeronautical research
and engineer”.In 1920 we find Orville
#2 living in Illinois with his wife Hattie, occupied as a farmer.

Pushing back to the
1910 U. S. Census, we find Orville #1 living in Dayton, Montgomery County, Ohio
with his sister Katherine, brother Wilbur, and their father Milton, an 81 year
old widower.Lest there be any doubt,
the brothers give their occupation as “inventor, aeroplane”: not a married Illinois farmer. Family trees that conflate the two Orvilles
are, sadly, quite common: Orville #1 ends up with Orville #2’s wife.

Now that we have seen
that the Illinois Orville Wright is really Wrong, let us look at his family and
descendants.Several family trees on
Ancestry.com give his wife’s maiden name as Hattie McLoren or Hattie V. (or N.)
McLaren; the 1910 U. S. Census says Orville and Hattie married 2 years earlier
(1908), when Orville was 27, and other trees say that his wife was Bessie F.
Haffner, whom he married at age 59 in 1941.There is no conflict if Orville #2 remarried after the death of his
first wife in 1936.

More interesting are
the numerous trees that report that Orville and Hattie had a daughter named
Buckingham, born in 1890 to Orville in Montgomery County, Ohio.Now of course the problem is that Hattie
married Orville #2 in Illinois, not Orville #1 in Ohio. In 1890 Orville #2 was not only unmarried; he
was 9 years old.Other trees allege that
Orville #1 had two children with Hattie, Viola Ann (born 1890) and Buckingham
(born 1890 or 1894).But Orville #1 was
still single and living at home with his parents in Ohio in 1900.

If you think you are
descended from either Buckingham or Viola Ann (born 1890), you need to come to
grips with several facts.First, Hattie
reports in the 1910 Census that she had never had a child.There are no children in their household in
any Census.Second, there are no Census,
birth, marriage or death records for the alleged daughters Buckingham and Viola
Ann.What sources are cited in the
Ancestry family trees that contain these names?The only sources are references to
other trees.There are absolutely no
primary sources cited because there are none.There is nothing but unsubstantiated rumor to support the claims that
Orville Wright #1 (the aeronaut) was married, that he had children, or that he
is anyone’s ancestor.Some of the enthusiasts
have conflated Orville #1 with Orville #2, despite overwhelming evidence that
they were different people, apparently in order to prove their descent from a
famous man.But even this ploy fails
because neither Orville had
descendants. And, by the way, neither
did Wilbur.

The bottom line: do
your research in primary sources.Issues
of fact are not to be settled by vote or consensus.Three and a half centuries ago the Royal
Society in London took as its motto the epigram “nullius in verbum”.That means “take nothing on someone’s word”: check
the facts for yourself in primary sources.Do you believe the Apollo program was a fake?Do you believe in the “hockey stick”
temperature graph?Cold fusion?Better check it out…

We presently know of
about 13,000 Near-Earth Asteroids, including nearly 1000 that are larger than 1
kilometer in diameter.Typical NEAs
range from Earth’s general vicinity out to the heart of the Asteroid Belt on
each orbit around the Sun.Their orbits
typically have inclinations (relative to the plane of the Solar System) of 10
to 30 degrees, eccentricities of 0.2 to 0.6, and orbital periods of about 2 to
4 years.The mean distance of any NEA
from the Sun is usually near 2 AU.But
the NEAs are a wildly diverse collection of bodies that originated at widely
separated locations in the Solar System.The outliers of this population include some truly remarkable
nonconformists.One such asteroid is
2014 PP69.

You will recall that
the first five characters in an asteroid’s name tell us when it was discovered,
in this case in 2014 in the second half of July.This provisional name will be used until
there is a long enough history of accurate tracking (usually at least one full
synodic period, the time needed to “lap” Earth in its orbit around the Sun), to
certify a precise, accurately predictable, orbit.The synodic period is about 2 years for most
NEAs.At that time the asteroid will be
given a catalog number such as 155629, at which point it will be referred to as
155629 2014 PP69.Once an asteroid has
been cataloged the discoverer may propose a name for it, such as Eros or Ceres;
let’s call this one Egbert.Then it will
be called 155629 Egbert; just plain Egbert to its friends.But the object of this post is just plain
2014 PP69: in the nine months since its discovery there has been no opportunity
for it to pass by Earth again, and therefore no chance to assign it a very
precise orbit and enter it into the catalog of numbered asteroids. Once the refined orbit is determined, the discoverer of the asteroid gets to give it a name.

So here’s what’s
unusual about 2014 PP69: its perihelion distance of 1.25 AU, which qualifies it
as an Amor asteroid, contrasts sharply with its aphelion distance of 41.79 AU,
well outside the orbits of Neptune and Pluto and well into the Kuiper
Belt.Its orbital period is an
incredible 99.84 years, longer than that of Halley’s Comet.But that’s not all: the inclination of its
orbit is 93.63 degrees, meaning that it orbits almost at right angles to the
plane of the Solar System—in fact, the orbit is slightly retrograde, moving around the Sun in a direction opposite to that
followed by the planets.The
eccentricity of its orbit is 0.942, higher than that of the typical
short-period comet.At perihelion, closer
to Mars’ orbit than to Earth’s, it is traveling at a whopping 40 kilometers per
second.

What do we know about
the asteroid itself?Almost
nothing.The discovery images show that
it has a visual (H) magnitude of 20.17, which, by the crude “rule of thumb”
used for newly discovered NEAs (an assumed average albedo of 0.14; 14%
reflectivity in visible light) corresponds to a diameter of about 330
meters.However, the orbit is cometary,
suggesting that a more realistic albedo would about 0.035.If it’s that bright and that black, then its
cross-section area must be four times as large, and its diameter twice as
large, as this crude guess would suggest.That implies eight times the volume and about eight times the mass,
raising the question of its impact hazard.The good news is that, despite its large size and kinetic energy, the
point at which it crosses the plane of Earth’s orbit is far outside our
neighborhood.

The body is almost
certainly of cometary composition, similar to the Centaurs and the Kuiper Belt
bodies and to short-period comets.A
reasonable guess would be that it is about 60% by mass ices and about 40% rock,
which in turn contains perhaps 5-10% of organic matter, mostly complex
polymers.

Sending a spacecraft to
visit 2014 PP69 would be extremely difficult because of its very high relative
velocity.And then there is the problem
that the next optimal launch opportunity is a century off.

How soon will 2014 PP69
qualify for a catalog number?On its
next pass through the inner Solar System we will have an opportunity to track
it again with such a long span of observations (a century!) that a very
accurate orbit can be calculated.That
will be in the year 2114.The bad news
is that the discoverer will no longer be alive to exercise the option of naming
his baby!

Some people are just
way ahead of their time.Leonardo drew
plans of helicopters and submarines in 1515; Konstantin Tsiolkovskii wrote of
exploiting asteroid resources in 1904.Now another visionary, Elon Musk, has proposed a supersonic train
operating inside an evacuated tunnel, serving the San Francisco-Los Angeles
corridor.This technically demanding
scheme seems fated for development many years in the future.

But let us turn to the
November 1909 issue of Scientific
American.(No, not 2009!)In that issue we find an editorial, “The
Limits of Rapid Transit”, based on an essay written in 1904 by an undergraduate
at Worcester Polytechnic Institute and submitted to Scientific American earlier in 1909, advocating the building of a
supersonic rail system serving the Boston-New
York-Philadelphia-Baltimore-Washington corridor.High speeds are achieved by running the
hermetically sealed train inside an evacuated tunnel.Sound familiar?If Musk is a certified visionary for
proposing this concept in 2012, what would we call the lad who advocated the
same idea in 1909?

The precocious lad in
question was none other than Robert Hutchings Goddard, father of American
rocketry, the first in the world to build and fly liquid fuel rockets.He was also the first to discuss putting
astronauts in suspended animation for prolonged space voyages, and the first to
propose the use of gyroscopes to stabilize aircraft—and all of these visionary ideas
originated while he was still an undergraduate.

One
other coda to append to this story: the website “Russia beyond the Headlines”
attributes the origin of the supersonic train idea to one Boris Weinberg of
Tomsk, who published the idea in an article entitled “Motion without Friction”
in 1914.The website reports that Weinberg
carried out tests of his device in which speeds of 6 km per hour were achieved.(Six km per hour is 3.6 miles per hour, the
speed of a brisk walk.)Only in Russia
is 1914 earlier than 1909, and only in Russia is walking speed supersonic.Oh, by the way, in 1914 it wasn’t Russia, and
certainly not the Soviet Union: it was the Russian Empire.For your amusement, the puff piece can be
read at:

Wednesday, July 29, 2015

The Dawn spacecraft, having completed its
lengthy survey of the asteroid 4 Vesta, and having survived the interplanetary
cruise from Vesta to Ceres, is now safely in orbit around the largest asteroid
in the Belt, 1 Ceres.One of the first
results from Dawn’s survey of Ceres is
the discovery of small, intensely bright spots on its surface.

Vesta and Ceres, though
nearly at the same distance from the Sun, are not twins; in fact, they are very
different creatures.Vesta is unique
among the large (>100 km diameter) asteroids in the Belt: it is a thoroughly
reworked body, having undergone extensive melting and differentiation into
layers with different composition and density, with a surface dominated by
rocks closely similar to terrestrial basalts.Ceres, in contrast, is a modestly altered body that is genetically
related to the very dark, volatile-rich C-type asteroids that dominate the
outer half of the Belt.

Back in 1977 Larry Lebofsky studied the
infrared reflection spectrum of Ceres and found an absorption feature near a
wavelength of 3 micrometers (µm).This
is a region in which water, in all its many chemical forms, is a strong
absorber.Articles in the press tend to
assume that any mention of “water” means liquid water, which equates to a
well-watered Eden for life.But the
3-micron feature is simply due to excitation of the stretching mode of the O-H
chemical bond: water vapor, liquid water, solid water-ice polymorphs, clay
minerals, micas, and hydrated salts such as gypsum all have broad absorption
bands in this same spectral region.Liquid water, if present today, could not occur stably close to the
surface (too cold; hard vacuum), but might persist at modest depths if some
solute is present to lower the freezing point and depress the vapor
pressure.A plausible candidate for that role is ammonium chloride, NH4Cl, which I regard as a far more plausible solute than the often-quoted ammonia.Many years ago(Low-Temperature Condensation from the Solar Nebula, Icarus16, 241, 1972) I pointed out that chemical synthesis of ammonia is
strongly favored by high pressures, suppressing ammonia synthesis in the Solar
Nebula. My colleagues Ron Prinn and Bruce Fegley showed that the higher pressures in dense protoplanetary nebulas favored ammonia formation there: ammonia
should be an important constituent of ices in planetary satellite systems but
not in asteroids, because they are formed in the low-pressure regime of the
Solar Nebula.

Indeed, the freshly
fallen Orgueil CI chondrite, which contains all the minerals mentioned above,
as well as veins of soluble salts deposited from solution in water, was
reported to give off a strong odor of “smelling salts”, ammonium chloride.

And what about the
bright white spots on Ceres? Liquid
water released from the interior of Ceres would boil well below the surface,
producing a jet of rapidly cooling vapor.Water vapor vented from a warm interior into the frigid vacuum of Ceres’
surface would expand irreversibly to produce a jet of snow, which would fall to
the ground near the vent.This would
happen whether the source of the water vapor is a shallow layer containing
liquid water or deep, hot rocks containing –OH minerals.Linking water venting on Ceres to the local
origin of life is sufficiently far-fetched to deserve skepticism.

Japan’s second asteroid
sampling mission is under way.Hayabusa 2 was launched from the
Tanegashima Space Center in January on its 6-year trip to the Near Earth
Asteroid (NEA) named 1999 JU3.The
mission is a follow-up to the ambitious but trouble-plagued Hayabusa 1 flight of 2003-2010, which
aspired to grab a substantial sample of the NEA Itokawa, but suffered several
failures, including malfunction of its sampling equipment. Hayabusa
1 nonetheless returned successfully to Earth bearing traces of asteroid
dust on its surface.

Hayabusa
2
carries, in addition to a sample-acquisition system, four small probes, one of
which is patterned after the Philae probe that recently landed on Comet 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko.These probes are capable of “hopping” about
on the asteroid surface; indeed, the main spacecraft is intended to land and
collect samples in three different places.

The present target
asteroid, despite its uninteresting name, has particular attraction for people
interested in the discovery and use of the native resources of space: it is a
very dark rock, similar in its reflectivity and spectrum to the carbonaceous
chondrite meteorites.These meteorites
contain up to 20% water by weight, plus about 6% of tarry organic polymers and
interesting amounts of many other compounds of the volatile elements hydrogen,
carbon, oxygen, sulfur, nitrogen, chlorine, and so on.The dominant minerals are water-bearing
clays, magnetite, and a variety of metal sulfides loosely cemented by the
organic gunk that coats the mineral grains.The CI chondrite meteorites also contain veins of various water-soluble
and water-bearing minerals, mostly sulfates and carbonates, that run through
the otherwise very black groundmass.Moderate heating releases water vapor; strong heating drives off a rich
variety of gases and causes the organic matter to react with the oxygen-rich
mineral magnetite to “burn” the organic matter and release copious amounts of
carbon oxides and water.All told,
strong heating of CI material drives off ~40% of the total mass of the
meteorite as gases of H, C, O, N, S, and Cl compounds.

1999 JU3 is about 920
meters (0.6 miles) in diameter, with a total mass of about 1 billion tonnes,
which upon heating would release some 400 million tonnes of volatiles.By way of comparison, a fully-fueled Saturn V rocket or Space Shuttle contains about 2000 tonnes of rocket propellant: 1999
JU3 contains enough hydrogen, carbon, and oxygen to fuel 200,000 such flights.

Deep Space Industries
(deepspaceindustries.com) is presently studying processes for turning the volatiles extracted from
carbonaceous asteroids into fuels and oxidizer for future space missions, and
into air and water for life-support and agricultural uses by future
spacefarers.The byproducts from
extraction of volatiles, including metals, are also of great economic interest.
Plans to manufacture these products await the successful return of samples to
Earth.

Return of Hayabusa 2 from the asteroid will
commence in late 2019, with entry into Earth’s atmosphere and recovery of the
return capsule scheduled for December 2020 in the interior of Australia.

Hayabusa
2
is a difficult and challenging mission.The Japanese Space Agency JAXA is to be congratulated for learning
valuable lessons from their earlier asteroid mission and designing an ambitious
and well-conceived successor.I wish
them the very best of luck.

Monday, July 27, 2015

I was awakened abruptly by pounding at my door. “Mr. Croft! Mr. Croft! Come quickly!” I struck a lucifer and touched it to the wick of my bedside lamp. By its light I could see that my alarm clock read a few minutes after 1 AM. I had been late falling asleep because of the evening’s ferocious thunderstorm. Two hours of sleep would not leave me at my best. The pounding resumed. “Mr. Croft! Fires are burning in Brooklyn!” I hurried to the door in my nightshirt to let him in before the people in my neighboring apartments would become annoyed. It was Jack Harris from the Tribune. He was flushed and trembling. He must have run here from the office, fully ten blocks--not a safe thing to do in New York at this time of night, when heavy, poorly-lit delivery wagons fill the streets. “There have been many lightning strikes in Manhattan and Brooklyn. There are at least a dozen fires visible from the Tribune tower, from the Bronx to Coney Island. The fire brigades are out, but of course the streets are congested and they’ll be slow to respond.” “What do I need to do? And who’s on the night news desk? Curtis?” “Yeah, Curtis—he wants you to check out the situation in Brooklyn. He wants you to write a front-page story about it.” I sent Harris back to the Trib with word that I was on my way to Brooklyn. I dressed quickly, choosing a rainproof overcoat against the cool, blustery October weather and the threat of continuing rain.At the curb I looked about for a carriage, but at this hour there were none to be seen. The streets were nearly filled with heavy horse carts and ox carts laden with coal, perishable foods and ice, coming in from farms in Jersey by ferry, and down the roads along the Hudson from the train terminus. I decided that the only way I could get about was on foot, and I could walk as fast as these carts were moving. I headed for the Brooklyn Bridge, crossing the streets with care, skirting the business district at the tip of Manhattan with its towering skyscrapers of ten to fifteen stories. Except for the Tribune tower, they were all dark and unoccupied, the stokers for their steam elevators having retired for the night. The streets were left to the carts and animals.The evening’s rain had made a foul soup of the horse and ox ordure that coated the streets. The wind was at my back. The smell was overwhelming, without even a hint of smoke from the fires ahead. I could not see any fires because my view was blocked by the tenement blocks and warehouses that lined the East River, but an eerie orange glow flickered on the low clouds overhead.As I approached the bridge I found all of Manhattan at a standstill. Traffic came only from the Brooklyn side, the entire Brooklyn bridge blocked by a river of citizens and carts surging into Manhattan. Wails, sobs, even screams pierced the background rumble of carts, but the general tide of humanity flowed on in silence, grim-faced and bowed under loads of household goods. Flames rose from the opposite side of the East River, no more than a block or two from the water's edge. How could I cross the bridge to Brooklyn as I had been assigned to do?The first responsibility of a reporter is to interview those who know what was happening. I stepped in front of a man with a heavy load of clothes and household items. “What is going on over there? Do you know how widespread the fire is?” He grimaced and shook his head. "Gone, all gone" he seemed to say.I could see converging fires cut off access to the bridge on the other side of the river, staunching the stream of foot traffic coming across the bridge. I ventured to walk against the flow on the narrow northern sidewalk, leaving the wagon lanes to the refugees. I tried to interview a dozen of them, but they had no heart or mind to share more than a sentence or two about the horrors they had seen. Bundles were abandoned, children lifted up, as the crowd pressed on to safety. As I finally neared Brooklyn the flames seemed to grow higher, towering hundreds of feet into the overcast sky, dwarfing the 5- and 6-story wooden tenements. The clouds reflected the glow of the fire, turning the heavens a sullen red. And as the flames pulsed and roared, the wind picked up ever more strength. Soon I could feel the intense heat of the blaze on my face and found myself being impelled toward the flames by the ever-strengthening wind.

The last stragglers of the exodus were passing me now. It was a heart-wrenching sight, for many were burned or were carrying victims of the flames in their arms or on their backs. So strong were the winds by this time that some could make no headway against them. Many simply collapsed in the roadway, barely able to crawl into the wind. One last refugee staggered along at the end of the line, terribly burned, the back of his coat smoldering, and collapsed in front of me. I went to him and found him still alive, but too weak to arise. I beat out the embers in his coat, but there was nothing else I could do for him. I left him there and continued cautiously, the wind propelling me toward the fire.A gust knocked me off my feet, and I fell on my face on the pavement. The wind was enough weaker at road level that I could crawl on toward the fire. I was well past the east pier of the bridge, still far above the level of the river. I could see far up the Brooklyn shore, a vista of the most utter devastation. The separate fires I had seen only minutes earlier seemed to have merged into a roaring single wall of flames, whipped by its own winds into a hellish frenzy. I suddenly had the thought that there was nothing left living in front of me; that I, if I wanted to live, should go no farther. I crossed the bridge to the south sidewalk on hands and knees, and there also I saw utter destruction. All approaches to the bridge had been blocked by intense fires and the glowing rubble of collapsed tenements. All that remained standing were masonry chimneys and the occasional iron fire escape, heated red-hot and stretching into the flaming sky. There was indeed nowhere for me to go except back.The enormity of the tragedy struck me so profoundly that I lost all strength. Exhausted, devastated, in despair, I collapsed in the roadway to collect my wits. I must have lain there for an hour before I could muster the strength to continue. Rather than return directly to my apartment, I made my way to the Tribune to write my story. The paper was published hours late because of the shortage of press workers, many of whom lived in Brooklyn and normally arrived by streetcar. But Brooklyn was gone, and so were the streetcars. I went home to a fitful sleep, haunted by the most gruesome dreams. When I finally awoke, I was obsessed with the idea of writing an op-ed piece on the tragedy. I sat down at my desk and wrote it out in a single sitting. Here it is:

The Franklin Law: Seed of Tragedy, by Arthur Croft

Every schoolchild knows the story of Benjamin Franklin, back in 1751, flying a kite in a thunderstorm, and of the tragic lightning strike that killed him. This promising young man, editor of the Pennsylvania Gazette, author of Poor Richard’s Almanack, organizer of the Philadelphia Fire and Police Departments, inventor of the Franklin stove, had just begun the study of lightning in the atmosphere and in the laboratory. Notes found among his personal effects laid out a scheme to protect buildings from lightning by means of metal wires or rods.

But because of the manifest hazard of studying lightning and other “electrickal” phenomena, and reinforced by the deaths of Franklin, the Russian physicist Georg Richmann, and other imitators of Franklin’s experiment, Parliament passed, in 1753, the well-known “Franklin Law” forbidding further experiments with lightning in all its manifestations. The law was an effective deterrent that doubtless saved lives throughout the Empire. The law was strictly enforced and few dared challenge it. Historians tell of the prosecution of Joseph Priestly in 1767 upon his attempts to publish a book entitled “History and Present State of Electricity”. The first few hundred copies of this book, printed in Leeds, were confiscated and burned by the authorities by order of the Court, and Priestly narrowly averted prison by abjuring the contents of his book, destroying his notes and personal copy of the manuscript, and paying a heavy fine. In Catholic countries, the 1757 encyclical Against Meddling with the Powers of God by Pope Benedict XIV specifically defined the study of lightning as impious, and effectively extended the ban on electrickal research throughout the rest of the Christian world.Yet now, in the wake of yesterday’s tragic fires, in which the death toll may well exceed one million souls, the value of protection against lightning has become manifest. Had it not been for this well-meaning Law, might not Franklin, or others following in his footsteps, have perfected the means to protect structures against lightning?

It is not the purpose of this writing to incite disobedience to the law and expose this journal to prosecution; however, it may be time to rethink the ban on electrickal research, which has in recent years been conducted with care and safety in Japan and the Netherlands. The benefit of saving one or two lives can scarcely outweigh the cost of the loss of a million.

This Law, and this tragedy, are not a legacy that Franklin would have wanted to bear his name.Published on the op-ed page of the New York TribuneNew York City, Crown Colony of New York, October 11, 2015

John S. Lewis

John S. Lewis is a professor emeritus of planetary science at the University of Arizona’s Lunar and Planetary Laboratory and is Chief Scientist at Deep Space Industries. His interests in the chemistry and formation of the solar system and the economic development of space have made him a leading proponent of turning potentially hazardous near-Earth objects into lucrative space resources. Prior to joining the University of Arizona, Lewis taught space sciences and cosmochemistry at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. He received his education at Princeton University, Dartmouth College and the University of California, San Diego, where he studied under Nobel Laureate Harold Urey. An expert on the composition and chemistry of asteroids and comets, Lewis has written such popular science books as "Mining the Sky", "Rain of Iron and Ice", and "Worlds without End".